On Sun, 2004-10-10 at 01:12 -0700, Rick Stout wrote: > I think we need to look at the browser situation from a different > angle. Perhaps a browser tightly integrated into gnome and used for > Internet surfing may be a bad idea. Aren't the biggest problems related > to MS, security, and stability the fact that the browser is synonymous > with the UI? Now while I understand that these problems aren't exactly > the same, but what's to stop it from going in that direction? > Personally, I like the fact that my browsing experience is separated > from the desktop, and I use Firefox on win32 because I don't have to > worry about the browser bringing down the desktop. This is may be a valid concern in the Windows world, but I don't think its such a big deal in Linux (unless if you run the desktop as root, which is exactly the problem in Windows). But I wanted to clarify a few things...there are two aspects to the "tight integration" thing, the design/philosophy aspect and the technical aspect. Epiphany is tightly integrated to Gnome in both aspects. The linux port of firefox is partially integrated to Gnome in the technical side (it uses gtk, gnome-vfs, and probably more) and is moving toward *more* Gnome integration. So using firefox is not going to be any *safer* than using epiphany. In my opinion, the main reason to use epiphany is the Gnome design/philosophy integration. What about KDE??? well... keep reading. > I think it would be > more beneficial to have a small footprint html rendering engine built > into the UI for simple tasks (help, external calls, etc..), and leave > the full-on Internet surfing to a dedicated browser. That is the case in the Gnome desktop, right now. There are various apps that use gtkthml (or one its versions) for simple html rendering. The dedicated browser *is* epiphany. > Besides, what good > is it to have two main gtk browsers based on the same rendering engine? > It leads to forked ideas and halved resources, as well as less > acceptance. > It leads to choice. Ask any Camino developer why are they wasting their time developing a mozilla-based browser for Mac instead of just using firefox and the answer is probably going to be "because firefox doesn't fit with the Mac philosophy". Firefox is pretty much a Windows app. In my opinion, the browser issue should be solved by desktop. Gnome -> Epiphany KDE -> Kemelon (or the mozilla-based Konqueror) Windows -> Firefox MacOS -> Camino All using the mozilla engine, but designed to fit the philosophy of the corresponding desktop. Beside, resources aren't necessary halved because: a) they share the same core (the Mozilla/Gecko platform/base/thingy) b) stopping the development of a browser (galeon, for example) doesn't necessary translate into more developers to the other browsers. > Mozilla was the standard, but the project team did say that Mozilla > should not be used as a browser. Mozilla was just to be a base, and > since Firefox was their choice for the frontend of the engine, it is > fitting that we should support it as the default. Since Mozilla is a *base* for building browsers (among other things) why not use it. Thats what epiphany and galeon are doing. > As for choice, does > that mean that *every* browser be installed by default? Do we install by default multiple desktops? multiple databases? etc... same thing here. > Choices are only truly made once there is an understanding, and for new > users, we should point them in the direction of the biggest acceptance, Since new users probably lack the understanding to make the initial choice, simple and easy-to-use defaults are probably the wisest option. If they outgrow the app, they will look for something else. > as well as where the majority of the support lies. Chicken and egg, "Default app" -> "Popularity" -> "More support for the app" > > Rick Stout Regards, -- Ricardo Veguilla <veguilla@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
